Talk:2015 Parramatta shooting

List of terrorist incidents, 2015

FYI, I have added this page to List of terrorist incidents, 2015 as seen here. 220 of ^Borg 08:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

socialist source

On my talk was this:

You have completely misrepresented WP:SOAP and WP:POV: you cannot claim WP:SOAP or WP:POV because this is simply a reaction--not establishment of facts. WSWS is notable and a notable group has equal rights to have their reactions added.58.106.240.171 (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

My reasons to oppose this, for several reasons:

• WP:SOAP means that activist sources shouldn't be added by activist editors. This is not established as a reliable source because the goal is to promote a political opinion by an activist group - activist media are treated differently POV and RS guidelines.

• It contains overt factual errors in the first paragraph - asserting that the shooter was shot by "plain clothes detectives" when the 7 news footage showed uniformed special constables returning fire. The fact that the organization has not attempted to fact check their first paragraph means that the source fails WP:RS as it doesn't publish error corrections.

All of this points to tedious editing by activist groups - WP:SOAP and WP:NOTHERE applies. -- Callinus (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

"factual error" or not has nothing to do with negating a reaction of a notable organisation. N.B.: any reaction is naturally POV because that is the point of such a section. The facts of the incident are clearly mentioned in other sub-sections.
Also, please do not make accusations such as claiming my edits are "tedious editing by activist groups". I could argue the same about at least one of your edits; however, i'm not in the habit of attempting character assassination to try and uphold the legitimacy of my edits: i rely upon the inherent strength of my edits alone.58.106.240.171 (talk) 12:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The source is not being used as factual news but being used as a reaction which are often inherently biased. I think the conduct of User:Callinus, in making these remarks, is in violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Many "mainstream media" sources such as the Daily Telegraph in both the UK and Australia have long histories of activist "reporting". AusLondonder (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for your support. I just felt impelled to respond to some fairly fallacious arguments against my edit.58.106.240.171 (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT means that it doesn't matter whether the opinion is couched - if it's an unimportant opinion then it doesn't need to be given equal weight - self published sources, that don't run fact checks or publish errors (the criteria used in WP:RS assessment) promoted by activist political organizations (eg Trotskyist ones) are not given the same coverage as opinions that are picked up by reliable, secondary, independent sources (such as the Sydney Morning Herald).

Wikipedia has policies on getting consensus for changes to some policies; WP:RSN exists as a noticeboard to discuss the reliability of some sources. Searching on RSN shows consensus is generally against WSWS as a reliable source - see the here, notably here and here where consensus is against undue weight being applied to the source.

Barring a discussion on RSN I don't see this as having due weight. The fact that the opinion columnist has failed to establish the basic facts of the case goes against arguments for inclusion - false balance does not need to be given to sources that fail to do any fact checking (this is argued frequently on WP:NPOVN to the point that WEIGHT has come in as a policy)

The article has references to the ABC's PM program and the SMH - both of these sources factually contradict assertions in the WSWS opinion piece - the ABC and SMH hold up on RSN, and WSWS doesn't - WEIGHT means there is no need for false balance. Self-published opinion pieces are not serious sources. -- Callinus (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The minor factual error you cite is irrelevant. No one is proposing the use of this source for factual analysis of the events. Regarding WP:RS, at the noticeboard the following has been stated regarding WSWS "This is an advocacy source. I think such sources might be useful in some cases, however they generally should not be used to discredit their political opponents, especially in BLP context, as in this case" and "The WSWS is a good source for socialist opinion" WP:BIASED states that "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". It mentions fact-checking, however, sources such as the Daily Telegraph and The Times have published stories containing factual errors, especially ones so trivial as this one (what the police were wearing). WSWS is not a self-published opinion piece. AusLondonder (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@AusLondonder:"source for socialist opinion" per WP:WEIGHT this article does not need socialist opinion above other coverage - there aren't self-published conservative blogs referenced to support claims made by conservative bloggers like Andrew Bolt - the policy WP:DUE is designed to exclude material only backed up by self-published opinion pieces.

WP:BIASED goes on to state "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking"

WP:ONUS states "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

WP:NPOV#Bias in sources states "This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether."

"what the police were wearing" - read Special constable#Australia - the special constables have the role of defending the police station, and the have the authorisation to use lethal force - it's why the opinion article asserting that "non-lethal attempts" should have been made is fatuous - the shooter had shot a police employee, and was aiming towards them.

"WSWS is not a self-published opinion piece" - the World Socialist Web Site is published by International Committee of the Fourth International - a Trotskyist political organisation. Relaible, independent sources like The Sydney Morning Herald are published by companies that pay for fact checking and publish corrections to previous errors, and are independent of any political party. James Cogan's opinion piece was not fact checked before being published on the Trotskyist site. Per WP:ONUS, the onus is on the group proposing the material to justify why material published by political parties should be included, beyond just the existing content that is picked up in major, independent, reputable, mainstream newspapers like The Sydney Morning Herald.

-- Callinus (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

AusLondonder, the errors in the story about who shot the perpetrator was pointed out 4 days ago in comments (by me) on the WSWS website, but has not been corrected. I think the other sources you mentioned would be more responsive to such a mistake. N.b. It is not about what they were wearing, they were not police, they were Special constables. 220 of ^Borg 10:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC) (Edited 220 of ^Borg 10:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC))

The political alignment of the site aside, the fact that the opinion piece contains clear errors of fact pretty much means it's not appropriate for inclusion here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC).

The issue of error of fact has already been addressed above. Plus, you simply reverted an edit when 1 addition clearly does not belong there i.e. the edit where neil criticises ibrahim. Before you wade into reverting an edit, at least try and respond to all issues with a little respect, rather than wholesale reversions.58.106.240.171 (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Lankiveil, Callinus, AusLondonder, and 58.106.240.171: Is this matter settled, or have the 'interested' editors been off line? The inaccuracy of the Socialist website is not a good thing. 220 of ^Borg 10:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

As you, Lankiveil, and I are against including that material, I will remove it. Outlining the reasons:

• The onus is on editors proposing the addition of material to justify its inclusion.
• The World Socialist Web Site is published by a group linked to the Australian Socialist Equality Party, a political party in Australia, not a reliable, established, mainstream newspaper independent of political parties.
• Factual errors in the article imply that editorial standards like "editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking" are lacking, meaning that the material does not merit inclusion on this article, unlike sources from major, mainstream, established newspapers like The Sydney Morning Herald.
• Auslondoner's comment that some other newspapers have low editorial standards is irrelevant.

-- Callinus (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that there is no consensus to include this opinion piece, and it should not be re-added until a consensus is reached here. I'm actually against the inclusion of any opinion piece here, regardless of source, unless a really good explanation is made about how it would add to a reader's understanding of the topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC).

Baird/Abbott/Turnbull

Backgrounnd: In June 2015 the guardian and IBTimes noted that Baird was welcomed at a Ramadan dinner while the AFP's was boycotted due to differences between Baird and Abbott over community relations.

Differences between Abbott and Turnbull are notable (Media Watch). By extension, Neil El-Kadomi's differences with the grand mufti illustrate differences between NSW Muslim relationships with Baird, and federal Muslims groups that have dealt with the AFP under Abbott.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Callinus (talk • contribs) 07:49, 13 October 2015‎

Article title

I wonder why this article is not called "Murder of Curtis Cheng" like similar articles? WWGB (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe because the perpetrator was also shot? 118.171.12.142 (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)